J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.
D
DOI 10.1007/s40033-015-0083-7
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Assessment of the Effect of Blast Hole Diameter on the Number
of Oversize Boulders Using ANN Model
Prakash Dhekne1 . Manoj Pradhan1 . Ravi Krishnarao Jade1
Received: 11 February 2015 / Accepted: 5 June 2015
Ó The Institution of Engineers (India) 2015
Abstract Now-a-days, blasts are planned using large
diameter blast holes. The loading density (kg/m) and sub-
sequently the energy available for the breakage of the
rockmass increase with the diameter. The in-hole velocity
of detonation (VoD) of non-ideal explosive also boosts up
with the increase in diameter till the optimum diameter is
reached. The increase in the energy content and in-hole
VoD cause a sizable effect on the rock fragmentation. The
effect can be assessed by counting the number of oversize
boulders. This paper explains as to how the technique of
artificial neural network modeling was used to predict the
number of oversize boulders resulting from ANFO and
SME blasts with blast holes of different diameters. The
results from ANFO blasts indicated that there was no sig-
nificant variation in the number of oversize boulders with
the diameter whereas a perceptible variation was noticed in
case of SME blasts with the change in the diameter. The
change in the number of oversize boulders in ANFO blasts
was negligible because mean energy factor remained
almost same even when the diameter of the blast holes was
altered. The decrease in the number of oversize boulders in
SME blasts was on account of increase in mean energy
factor when the blast hole diameter was increased. The
increase in the in-hole VoD due to increase in the diameter
of the hole was not found to have an effect on the gener-
ation of oversize boulders as this increase was not sub-
stantial both in SME and ANFO blasts.
& Prakash Dhekne
pyd_05@yahoo.co.in
1
Department of Mining Engineering, National Institute of
Technology, Raipur 492010, India
Keywords ANN  Oversize boulders  SME  ANFO 
Blasting  Explosive energy factor
Introduction
In mining industry, blasting is normally used for the
breakage of the rock. During blasting, the explosive
detonates and releases useful energy for shattering the
rockmass. Quality of rock fragmentation has always been
a matter of great concern for mining engineers as the
oversize boulders require secondary breakage. The sec-
ondary breakage leads to wastage of time and money.
Blasting resorted to for secondary breakage is often
associated with safety related hazards. It is therefore
necessary that the number of oversize fragments should
be minimum in a muck pile. A lot of research has been
carried out on the various aspects of rock fragmentation
with the sole objective of improving the same [1–17].
The quality of blast-induced fragmentation depends upon
the magnitude of energy factor and the in-hole VoD of
the explosive in addition to other known parameters. The
energy factor describes the energy distribution within a
given unit volume of rockmass and is a ratio of the
explosive energy (kcal) to quantity of rock broken (m3)
[18]. The energy factor depends upon the charge weight
and the blast dimensions. Blast hole diameter influences
charge weight and the estimation of important blast
design parameters like spacing, burden etc. It therefore
controls the energy factor. The in-hole VoD of the
commercial explosives also depends upon blast hole
diameter [19, 20]. Enhanced energy factor and in-hole
VoD results in an improved shattering effect and hence
less number of oversize boulders are produced. It is
therefore, necessary to select a proper blast hole diameter
123

which will ensure maximum energy factor and in-hole
VoD so that oversize fragments are minimised. The
feasibility of a certain blast hole diameter can be
assessed by the estimation of resulting rock fragmenta-
tion. The number of oversize boulders can be used as a
measure of blast-induced rock fragmentation. This paper
explains the application of technique of ANN modeling
to predict the number of oversize boulders resulting from
ANFO and SME blasts in the various blast hole diam-
eters so as to evaluate the effect of diameter on the
oversize boulders.
With the advent of fast computing machines, use of
artificial intelligence (AI) techniques has become wide-
spread. The AI based program codes are imparted super-
vised learning with the input and output datasets. Once the
training is over, the codes can predict the output depending
upon the input values. A large number of tools have been
developed in AI to solve the most difficult problems and
ANN is one of them. Literature review indicates that a lot
of work has been done on the application of ANN to pre-
dict various aspects of blast-induced ground vibrations
[21–24], air overpressure [25], fly rock [26–28], back break
[29–32], powder factor [33–35], estimation of blast
geometry [36–38], estimation of fragmentation [32, 39–45]
etc.
Many a models are available in the literature for the
estimation of the fragmentation [46, 47]. These models are
either empirical or statistical besides the AI based models.
The empirical and the statistical models have serious dis-
advantages like requirement of extensive investigations,
bulky calculations and overlooking of certain parameters
like detonation behavior, delay scatter etc. The AI based
models overcome these shortcomings.
Sayadi et al. [32], Bahrami et al. [39], Kulatilake et al.
[40], Moghadam et al. [41], Monjezi et al. [42], Oraee
and Asi [43], Shi et al. [44], Zhu and Wu [45] etc. have
developed ANN models for prediction of the fragmenta-
tion. The researchers have used various rock parameters,
blast parameters and explosive parameters as input vari-
ables and either the mean fragment size or the sieve
analysis or both have been the target variable(s). The
research carried out so far is conducive to the needs of
the industry. However, in addition to the mean fragment
size or percentage size passing, practicing mining engi-
neers are also interested in knowing the number of
oversize boulders so that they can plan the secondary
breakage operations. Extensive literature survey has
indicated that an ANN model has not been developed to
predict the oversize boulder count. Therefore, a model
based on the concept of ANN has been developed to
predict the oversize boulder count so that the blast design
parameters can be adjusted to minimise the oversize
boulder count.
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
Assessment of the Effect of Diameter on Rock
Fragmentation
Blasthole diameter is an input for estimating burden,
spacing, stemming, bench height, charge length and the
loading density. With the change in blast hole diameter and
subsequently change in the blast parameters, the powder
factor sometimes needs to be adjusted depending upon the
type of the explosive and geotechnical parameters. Powder
factor is a good indicator of the explosive energy used to
break a quantity of rock and normally explosive energy
increases with density of explosive. The energy of the
slurries, water gels and emulsions the energy can vary even
though the explosive density remains the same. The energy
content per metre of explosive column for ANFO blasts
increases from 31,414 to 54,880 kJ/kg because of increase
in the loading density when the diameter of the blast hole is
increased from 115 to 152 mm, whereas, in case of SME
blasts it enhances from 29,030 to 67,075 kJ/kg when the
diameter is increased from 100 to 152 mm.
The in-hole VoD of the explosive also increases with the
diameter till the value of optimum diameter is reached. The
increase is noticeable in case of non-ideal explosives like
ANFO. It is well established that the in-hole VoD of ANFO
increases from 3600 to 4000 m/s when the diameter of blast
hole increases from 115 to 152 mm [20]. The increase in case
of SME is from 4500 to 5000 m/s when the diameter is
increased from 100 to 152 mm [20]. The net effect of increased
energy factor and the in-hole VoD leads to a better
fragmentation.
Artificial Neural Networks
Concept
ANN is a subsystem of AI. This computational system
mimics the function of human brain. Since its inception, ANN
has become popular and applicable to various fields of sci-
ence and technology to solve complicated simulation prob-
lems. The ANN is capable of calculating arithmetic and
logical functions, generalizing and transforming independent
variables to the dependent variables, parallel computations,
nonlinearity processing, handling noisy data, function
approximation and pattern recognition [32]. ANN is trained
using a set of real inputs and their corresponding outputs. For
a better approximation, sufficient number of datasets are
required. Performance of the trained model is checked with
part of the available data known as testing datasets. To find
out the best possible network, various topologies are con-
structed and tested. The process of model training–testing has
to be continued until the optimum model with minimum error
and maximum accuracy is achieved. A neural network has a
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

layered structure, and each layer contains processing units or
neurons. Input variables are placed in the input layer, whereas
target variables a put in the output layer. The neurons in the
hidden layers are the intermediate computation components
(black box) of the system. All of the layers are connected to
each other by weighted connections. Each neuron is con-
nected to the neurons in the subsequent layer. However, there
is no connection between the neurons of the same layer.
In the training process, the interconnections amongst the
neurons are initially assigned specific weights. The net-
work would be able to perform a function by adjusting the
initial weights. In the process of ANN training, an initial
arbitrary value (weight) is assigned to the connections and
then to combine all of the weighted inputs and generate the
neuron output and the following equation is applied:
X
O¼ xi wi þ b: ð1Þ
where xi is the input; wi is the connection weight and b is
the bias.
The neuron output is mapped to actual output by the
following function.
X  that the rockmass is competent. As stated earlier; the
y ¼ f ðO Þ ¼ f xi wi þ b ð2Þ
where f is transfer function.
Development of ANN Model
The ANN model described in this paper was developed in
MatLab environment. The model has been developed in the
syntax available in ANN tool box of MatLab. The blast
records for operationalizing the network were generated
from limestone quarries having similar geological set-up.
Three hundred blast records were used for the training,
validation and testing of the ANN model. An overview and
the geotechnical set up of these quarries have been pre-
sented in Tables 1 and 2. The blast practice has been
summarized in Table 3.
Chiappetta [47] states that the order of influence of vari-
ous parameters for the fragmentation in competent rocks is:
1. Explosive energy per unit volume of rock mass, i.e.
specific charge.
2. Explosive distribution within the rock mass.
3. Type of explosive.
4. Delay timing.
5. Joint system and its orientation with respect to blast
direction.
The findings of Chiappetta [47] have been taken as the
starting hypothesis for the selection of the input variables.
A perusal of geotechnical properties (Table 2) indicates
specific charge has the most dominating role in deciding
the quality of fragmentation in such rockmass. The specific
charge is logically correlated with the number of holes/row,
number of rows, average depth, average spacing, average
burden and total quantity of explosive fired in one round.
Consideration of individual parameters assists in sensitivity
analysis of the parameters, if desired. Therefore, the indi-
vidual parameters have been considered instead of specific

Table 1 Overview of the quarries

Name of the quarry Overburden Overburden rock Nature of deposit No. of benches Excavation method
thickness (m)

Baikunth 5 Hard laterite and clay Horizontal, thick bedded
stromatolitic limestone of
Raipur Group. Associated
rocks are Dolomitic
limestone and shale
Rawan 6 Hard laterite and clay Horizontal, thick bedded
stromatolitic limestone of
Raipur Group. Associated
rocks are the patches of
argillaceous limestone
Sonadih 4 Hard laterite and clay Horizontal, thick bedded
stromatolitic stone of Raipur
Group. Associated rocks are
the patches of dolomitic
limestone
Hirmi 6 Hard laterite and clay Horizontal, thick bedded
stromatolitic limestone of
Raipur Group. Associated
rocks are the patches of
argillaceous limestone
3 Drilling, blasting and loading
by hydraulic shovel onto the
dumpers
4 Drilling, blasting and loading
by hydraulic shovel onto the
dumpers
4 Drilling, blasting and loading
by hydraulic shovel onto the
dumpers
4 Drilling, blasting and loading
by hydraulic shovel onto the
dumpers

123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 2 Geotechnical parameters of limestone quarries

Name of the Uniaxial compressive Density Young’s Porosity Vertical spacing Horizontal spacing
quarry strength (M Pa) (g/cc) modulus (G Pa) (%) between joints (m) between joints (m)

Baikunth 38 2.25 46 6 1.0 0.6

Rawan 43 2.38 49 5 1.5 0.9
Sonadih 45 2.35 48 7 1.4 0.8
Hirmi 44 2.40 50 5 2.0 1.0

Table 3 Blast practice details

Name of the Dia Spacing Burden Depth Explosive Primer Initiation Secondary breakage
quarry (mm) (m) (m) (m) type method method

Baikunth 100 3.0–4.0 5.0–6.0 8 ANFO Cartridge booster/cast Cord relays Secondary blasting/rock
booster breaker
152 4.5–5.0 6.5–7.0 SME Cast booster Shock tubes
Rawan 152 7 4 8 SME Cast booster Shock tubes Rock breaker
Sonadih 115 4 3 9 SME Cast booster Shock tubes Rock breaker
Hirmi 115 4 6 8 ANFO Cartridge booster/cast Cord relays Rock breaker
152 5 7 booster

charge. The in-hole VoD and the density of the explosive
are characterised by the type of the explosive. The explo-
sive distribution is represented by the diameter of the blast
hole and the stemming height. The geotechnical parameters
and the delay practice were similar in the referred mines
hence they have not been considered as input variables.
This makes the model site specific. The model can be used
in different geotechnical environment and/or with different
delay practice if it is trained, validated and tested with new
blast records. This is not a major problem as most of the
mines maintain the records which are required for the
operationalizing the model.
The number of holes per row, number of rows, average
spacing, average burden, average depth, diameter, average
stemming, type of explosive and total charge were there-
fore, the input variables. The target variable was the
number of oversize boulders. The maximum feed size of
the crushers of the quarries is 1 m. Therefore, the boulders
having the size more than 1 m are considered as oversize.
The blast records were initially assessed for their technical
feasibility and then divided into three sets. An overview of
the data used for the training, validation and testing is
presented in Table 4.
One set comprising of 191 records was used for training
of the ANN model. A back-propagation neural network
was selected due to its simplicity and uniform approxi-
mation of any continuous function. The number of neurons
in the input layer was nine and the number of neurons in

Table 4 Range of the data used for the training, validation and testing
Value
Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Input variables
Diameter (mm) 100 152 Not applicable
Average burden (m) 2.80 4.65 3.73 0.61
Average spacing (m) 3.70 6.80 4.89 0.78
Average depth (m) 7.00 9.75 8.66 0.61
Average stemming (m) 2.60 4.30 3.33 0.39
Number of holes/row 9 57 25 8.13
Number of rows 2 3 Not applicable
Type of the explosive ANFO and SME
Quantity of explosive fired per round (kg) 1287 9567 4109 1897
Target variable
Number of oversize boulders 39 250 122 45.82

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
Fig. 1 Developed artificial neural network
the output layer was one. The tool box provides a number
of training functions and each is having its own advantages
and disadvantages. The objective of the training function is
to adjust the weights and the bias vectors so as to find the
complicated relation between the input and output. The
application of a training function depends on several fac-
tors, such as the complexity of the problem, the number of
training samples, the structure of the network and error
target. Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) algorithm was used for
training the network because it has a good generalization
ability and has the capability of providing good predictions.
The LM algorithm is an improved algorithm that provides a
numerical solution to the problem of minimizing a function
over a space of parameters of the function. Not only the
first derivative information but also the second derivative
information of the target function is used in the LM algo-
rithm. It can dynamically adjust the convergence direction
of iteration according to the iteration result, so its con-
vergence speed is very fast. During the training of the ANN
model, the number of hidden layers and the transfer
function were optimized. The optimization was ascertained
by regression coefficient during training. As a result of
Fig. 2 Curves obtained in MatLab during training, validation and testing of the data sets
optimization, a back-propagation (BP) neural network
model with two hidden layers with two neurons in each of
them, Levenberg–Marquardt as training function and
purelin function as transfer function was finalized (Fig. 1).
Another set having 77 records was used for validation and
remaining 32 records were used for testing. The model
predicted the number of oversize boulders based on the input
variables of 32 records comprising of ANFO blasts in 152
and 115 mm diameter holes and SME blasts in 152 and
100 mm diameter holes and the predictions were compared
with target variables of these 32 records. The predictive
ability of the neural network is evident from Figs. 2, 3 and 4.
Effect of the Diameter on Oversize Boulders
The numbers of the oversize boulders were predicted using
the ANN model by feeding the input variables of 32 blast
records set aside for testing. The numbers so predicted
were used for comparison with the actual oversize boulders
counted in respect of each blast. The number of the actual
and predicted oversize boulders was calculated in 100 m3
of in situ rockmass for comparison. The results are pre-
sented in Table 5. Table 6 shows the calculations of the
energy factor in each blast. The overszie boulders in
100 m3 of in situ rockmass were plotted (Fig. 5).
It is assumed that the energy content of 1 kg of ANFO is
900 kcal and that of 1 kg of SME is 800 kcal [20]. The
conversion factor for kcal to kJ is taken as 4.2.
The summary of trends as observed from Fig. 5 is given
in Table 7.
123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Fig. 3 Regression lines obtained in MatLab during training, validation and testing of the data sets
Predicted Oversize Boulder Count

160 in situ rockmass whereas the number remained almost

140
R² = 0.8184 similar to 1.74 (mean) oversize boulders in 100 m3 of in-
120 situ rockmass when 115 mm diameter holes charged with
100 ANFO were fired. The performance of SME was assessed
80 in the blasts with 152 and 100 mm diameter holes. In the
60 former case the number of oversize boulders in 100 m3
40
in situ rockmass was 0.88 (mean) whereas in the latter case
20
it was 1.34 (mean) oversize boulders in 100 m3 in situ
rockmass.
0
0 50 100 150 200 The predicted values by ANN model also closely fol-
Actual Oversize Boulder Count lowed the actual values of oversize boulders. The number
of oversize boulders in 100 m3 of in situ rockmass
Fig. 4 Scatter obtained in actual and predicted oversize boulder increased from 1.86 (mean) to 1.89 (mean) when the
count
diameter was changed from 152 mm to 115 mm in ANFO
blasts. The number of oversize boulders in 100 m3 of
The actual number and predicted number of oversize in situ rockmass increased from 0.78 (mean) to 1.15 (mean)
boulders in 100 m3 in situ rockmass, for both ANFO and when the diameter was changed from 152 mm to 100 mm
SME, were calculated and are plotted in the Figs. 6 and 7. in SME blasts. It was thus observed that both the actual and
Firing of 152 mm diameter holes charged with ANFO predicted number of oversize boulders did not vary sig-
generated 1.76 (mean) oversize boulders in 100 m3 of nificantly in case of ANFO blasts but the same

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 5 ANN prediction results

S. no. In-situ volume of Explosive Actual number Predicted number Actual number of Predicted number of
the blast (m3) used of oversize of oversize oversize boulders in oversize boulders in
boulders boulders 100 m3 of in situ rockmass 100 m3 of in situ rockmass

1 5756.63 ANFO 94 125 1.63 2.17

2 5904.00 ANFO 99 119 1.68 2.02
3 8011.08 ANFO 148 137 1.85 1.71
4 6988.80 ANFO 128 131 1.83 1.87
5 6476.49 ANFO 113 123 1.74 1.90
6 6336.00 ANFO 110 120 1.74 1.89
7 7920.00 ANFO 144 134 1.82 1.69
8 7630.88 ANFO 135 139 1.77 1.82
9 7750.58 ANFO 139 132 1.79 1.70
10 7725.00 SME 70 71 0.91 0.92
11 6670.00 SME 61 47 0.91 0.70
12 10,642.50 SME 88 102 0.83 0.96
13 4961.25 SME 39 23 0.79 0.46
14 5704.00 SME 45 24 0.79 0.42
15 7224.00 SME 66 50 0.91 0.69
16 10,074.24 SME 91 89 0.90 0.88
17 10,497.60 SME 94 100 0.90 0.95
18 8500.80 SME 84 89 0.99 1.05
19 5896.80 ANFO 126 121 2.14 2.05
20 6113.20 ANFO 129 120 2.11 1.96
21 5116.80 ANFO 90 98 1.76 1.92
22 3148.80 ANFO 51 53 1.62 1.68
23 4218.48 ANFO 64 82 1.52 1.94
24 3967.49 ANFO 60 68 1.51 1.71
25 5097.33 ANFO 88 106 1.73 2.08
26 4175.47 ANFO 64 75 1.53 1.80
27 9576.00 SME 130 110 1.36 1.15
28 11,628.00 SME 152 131 1.31 1.13
29 7459.20 SME 100 83 1.34 1.11
30 8388.62 SME 112 102 1.34 1.22
31 8073.00 SME 107 95 1.33 1.18
32 9830.57 SME 135 111 1.37 1.13

increased appreciably when the diameter of the blast holes
was reduced from 152 mm to 100 mm in SME blasts.
It was observed that in case of ANFO blasts the mean
energy factor was 1575.82 kJ/m3in 115 mm diameter blast
holes whereas, the same marginally increased to
1629.01 kJ/m3 in case of 152 mm diameter blast holes.
Thus an improvement of 3.3 % was obtained in the mean
energy factor when the blast hole diameter was changed
from 115 to 152 mm. It is also well established that the in-
hole VoD of ANFO increases with the increase in the
diameter. The in-hole VoD is nearly 3600 m/s in 115 mm
diameter holes and its practical value is 4000 m/s when the
diameter is 152 mm [20]. The increase of 10 % (approx.)
in in-hole VoD can be considered as negligible [20]. Since
the mean energy factor and in-hole VoD did not change
significantly, hence the number of oversize boulders in
100 m3 of in situ rock remained almost similar.
It was observed that in case of SME blasts the mean
energy factor was 1754.98 kJ/m3in 100 mm diameter blast
holes whereas, the same increased to 1954.76 kJ/m3 in case
of 152 mm diameter blast holes. Thus an improvement of
11.3 % was obtained in the mean energy factor when the

123
 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 6 Calculation of energy factor

Blast no. Diameter Volume of in situ Mass of explosives Energy Energy factor Mean energy
(mm) rockmass influenced by in one blast hole (kg) (kJ) (kJ/m3) factor (kJ/m3)
one blast hole (m3)

1 152 191.89 84.81 320,581.80 1670.68 1629.01

2 152 184.50 90.21 340,982.46 1848.14
3 152 182.07 75.56 285,609.24 1568.68
4 152 174.72 77.10 291,438.00 1668.03
5 152 179.90 79.41 300,181.14 1668.58
6 152 176.00 84.81 320,581.80 1821.49
7 152 198.00 80.18 303,095.52 1530.79
8 152 200.81 76.33 288,523.62 1436.78
9 152 203.96 87.89 295,323.84 1447.93
10 152 154.50 81.68 274,428.00 1776.23 1954.76
11 152 126.88 87.12 292,723.20 2307.18
12 152 154.69 87.12 292,723.20 1892.35
13 152 128.63 76.23 256,132.80 1991.31
14 152 135.63 92.57 311,018.40 2293.22
15 152 160.00 87.12 292,723.20 1829.52
16 152 214.65 117.61 395,176.32 1841.03
17 152 218.70 119.79 402,494.40 1840.40
18 152 184.80 100.19 336,631.68 1821.60
19 115 113.40 52.98 200,264.40 1766.00 1575.82
20 115 105.40 47.68 180,237.96 1710.04
21 115 98.40 37.97 143,522.82 1458.57
22 115 98.40 45.92 173,562.48 1763.85
23 115 105.46 45.03 170,224.74 1614.09
24 115 94.46 35.32 133,509.60 1413.34
25 115 94.40 36.64 138,516.21 1467.41
26 115 122.81 45.92 173,562.48 1413.28
27 100 114.00 62.24 209,119.68 1834.38 1754.98
28 100 114.00 61.30 205,951.20 1806.59
29 100 118.40 57.99 194,861.52 1645.79
30 100 121.57 62.24 209,119.68 1720.10
31 100 117.00 65.07 218,625.12 1868.59
32 100 113.00 55.64 186,940.32 1654.41

blast hole diameter was changed from 100 to 152 mm. It is

Oversize Boulders in 100 cubic

2.50
metres of in-situ rockmass

Predicted
also well established that the in-hole VoD of SME
2.00
Actual increases with the increase in the diameter. The in-hole
1.50 VoD is nearly 4500 m/s in 100 mm diameter holes and its
practical value is 5000 m/s when the diameter is 152 mm
1.00
[20], which is negligible. It can therefore be seen that the
0.50 mean energy factor perceptibly increased when the diam-
0.00 eter was increased from 100 to 152 mm but the in-hole
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 VoD did not change significantly. The reduction number of
Blast No.
oversize boulders in 100 m3 of in situ rock reduced with
Fig. 5 Variation in actual and predicted number of oversize boulders increase in the diameter can therefore be attributed to mean
for different blasts energy factor.

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D

Table 7 Summary of trends

S. no. Diameter Type of the Mean actual Mean predicted Maximum Minimum
(mm) explosive number of number of oversize
oversize boulders boulders Actual number Predicted Actual number Predicted
of oversize number of of oversize number of
boulders oversize boulder oversize
boulders boulders

1–9 152 ANFO 1.76 1.86 1.83 2.17 1.63 1.69

10–18 152 SME 0.88 0.78 0.99 1.05 0.79 0.42
19–26 115 ANFO 1.74 1.89 2.14 2.08 1.51 1.68
27–32 100 SME 1.34 1.15 1.37 1.22 1.31 1.11
The number of oversize boulders in 100 m3 of in situ rockmass

2.5
in 100 cubic metres of in-
No. of Oversize boulders

1.5
situ rocks

Actual
1 Predicted
0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Blast No.

Fig. 6 Effect of diameter on boulder generation in ANFO blasts 1–9 are 152 mm diameter and 10–17 are 115 mm diameter blast holes

1.60
metres of in-situ rock
boulders in 100 cubic

1.40
No of Oversize

1.20
1.00 Actual
0.80
0.60 Predicted
0.40
0.20
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Blast No.

Fig. 7 Effect of diameter on boulder generation in SME blasts 1–9 are 152 mm diameter and 10–15 are 100 mm diameter blast holes

Conclusion model has satisfactory predictive abilities. The predictions

The artificial neural network seems to be a suitable mea-
sure to predict rock fragmentation. In this study, a new
ANN model was established to predict oversize boulder
count in blasting operation. The new model is a BPNN with
two hidden layers with two neurons in each of the hidden
layer. The model uses LM training algorithm and purelin
transfer function. The model indicated an overall high
correlation coefficient of 0.96. The correlation coefficient
between actual and predicted number of oversize boulders
was more than 0.90. It can therefore be concluded that the
of oversize boulders in SME blasts indicated that there was
a significant decrease in the oversize boulder count in
100 m3 of in situ rockmass when the diameter of the blast
hole was increased from 100 to 152 mm. The analysis of
the results indicated that increase in the mean energy factor
with the diameter was the reason. The estimations in
ANFO blasts indicated that the oversize boulder count in
100 m3 of in situ rockmass was similar even when the
diameter was increased from 115 to 152 mm because mean
energy factor did not change appreciably with the diameter
in ANFO blasts. Further in-hole VoD does not have any

123

appreciable effect on the oversize boulder count within the
diameter range considered in this study.
References
1. J. Aler, J. Du Mouza, M. Arnould, Measurement of the frag-
mentation efficiency of rock mass blasting and its mining appli-
cations. Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 33(2), 125
(1996)
2. S. Bhandari, Engineering Rock Blasting Operations (A.
A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997)
3. J.T. Castro, A.V. Liste, A.S. Gonzalez, Blasting index for
exploitation of aggregates, in Proceedings of the 7th Mine
Planning and Equipment Selection Symposium, Calgary, Canada,
6–9 Oct 1998, p. 165
4. A.K. Chakraborty, A.K. Raina, M. Ramulu, P.B. Choudhury, A.
Haldar, P. Sahu, C. Bandopadhyay, Parametric study to develop
guidelines for blast fragmentation improvement in jointed and
massive formations. Eng. Geol. 73(1–2), 105 (2004)
5. S. Esen, I. Onederra, H.A. Bilgin, Modelling the size of crushing
zone around a blast hole. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40(4), 485
(2003)
6. A. Ghosh, J.J.K. Daemen, D Vanzyl, Fractal based approach to
determine the effect of discontinuities on blast fragmentation,
rock mechanics contributions and challenges, in Proceedings of
the 31st U.S. Symposium, Golden, Colorado, 18–20 Jun 1990,
p. 905
7. C. Grundstrom, S. Kanchibotla, A. Jankovic, D.M. Thornton,
blast fragmentation for maximizing the SAG mill throughput at
Porgera Goldmine, in Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference
on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando, Florida, 28–31
Jan 2001, p. 383
8. E. Hamdi, J. Du Mouza, A methodology for rock mass charac-
terization and classification to improve blast results. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 42(2), 177 (2005)
9. E. Hamdi, J. Du Mouza, J.A. Fleurisson, Evaluation of the part of
blasting energy used for rock mass fragmentation. Fragblast 5(3),
180 (2001)
10. H. Hjelmberg, Some ideas on how to improve calculations of the
fragment size distribution in bench blasting, in 1st International
Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Luleå University
Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 23–26 Aug 1983, p. 469
11. C.L. Jimeno, E.L. Jimeno, F.J.A. Carcedo, Drilling and Blasting
of Rocks (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1995)
12. N. Mojtabai, I.W. Farmer, J.P. Savely, Optimisation of rock
fragmentation in bench blasting, rock mechanics contributions
and challenges, in Proceedings of the 31st U.S. Symposium,
Golden, Colorado, 18–20 Jun 1990, p. 897
13. F. Ouchterlony, B. Niklasson, S. Abrahamsson, Fragmentation
monitoring of production blasts at Mrica, in International Sym-
posium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FragBlast 3, Bris-
bane, Australia, 26–31 Aug 1990, p. 283
14. P. Pal Roy, Breakage assessment through cluster analysis of joint
set orientations of exposed benches of opencast mines. Geotech.
Geol. Eng. 13(2), 79 (1995)
15. P. Rai, S.S. Baghel, Investigation of firing patterns on fragmen-
tation in an indian opencast limestone mine. Quarry Manag. J. 31,
33 (2004)
16. J.A. Sanchidrian, P. Segarra, L.M. Lopez, Energy components in
rock blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 44(1), 130 (2007)
17. N.R. Thote, D.P. Singh, in Effect of Air-Decking on Fragmen-
tation: A Few Case Studies of Indian Mining, Explosive &
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
Blasting Technique, ed. by R. Holmberg (Balkema, Rotterdam,
2000), p. 265
18. G.K. Pradhan, Energy factor based explosive selection and per-
formance evaluation of blasting in surface mines, Ph. D. Thesis
submitted to VNIT, Nagpur, India, 2011
19. NIRM, Evaluation of Explosives Performance using In-the-hole
Detonation Velocity Measurement, National Institute of Rock
Mechanics, Kolar Gold Fields, India, S&T Project funded by
Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India, 2001
20. M. Pradhan, Investigations into the effects of some factors on
detonation velocity of chemically sensitised bulk emulsion
explosives, Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla
University, Raipur, India, 2007
21. M. Khandelwal, T.N. Singh, Prediction of blast induced ground
vibrations and frequency in opencast mine: a neural network
approach. J. Sound Vib. 289(4–5), 711 (2006)
22. M. Monjezi, M. Hasanipanah, M. Khandelwal, Evaluation and
prediction of blast-induced ground vibration at Shur River Dam,
Iran by artificial neural network. Neural Comput. Appl. 22(7–8),
1637 (2013)
23. M. Monjezi, M. Ghafurikalajahi, A. Bahrami, Prediction of blast-
induced ground vibration using artificial neural networks. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 26(1), 46 (2011)
24. T.N. Singh, A study of blast induced ground vibration at
Dharapani Magnesite Mine, Pitthoragarh Himalaya, India, in
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Headwater
Control, New Delhi, 6–8 Oct 1995, p. 183
25. C. Sawmliana, P. Pal Roy, R.K. Singh, T.N. Singh, Blast induced
air overpressure and its prediction using artificial neural network,
mining technology. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A 116(2), 41 (2007)
26. M. Monjezi, H. Dehghan, F. Samimi Namin, Application of
TOPSIS method in controlling fly rock in blasting operations, in
Proceedings of the 7th International Science Conference SGEM,
Sofia, Bulgaria, 11–15 Jun 2007, p. 41
27. M. Monjezi, A. Mehrdanesh, A. Malek, M. Khandelwal, Evalu-
ation of effect of blast design parameters on flyrock using arti-
ficial neural networks. Neural Comput. Appl. 23(2), 349 (2013)
28. R. Trivedi, T.N. Singh, A.K. Raina, Prediction of blast induced
fly rock in indian limestone mines using neural networks. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. En. 6, 447 (2014)
29. W. Gate, L. Ortiz, R. Florez, Analysis of rockfall and blasting
backbreak problems, in proceedings of the american rock
mechanics conference, vol 4, Anchorage, Alaska, 25–29 June
2005, p. 290
30. A.R. Karami, H. Mansouri, M.A.E. Farsangi, H. Nezamabadi,
Backbreak prediction due to bench blasting: an artificial neural
network approach. J. Min. Met. Fuels India 54(12), 418 (2006)
31. M. Monjezi, S.M.H. Rizi, V.J. Majd, M. Khandelwal, Artificial
neural network as a tool for backbreak prediction. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 32(1), 21 (2014)
32. A. Sayadi, M. Monjezi, N. Talebi, M. Khandelwal, A compara-
tive study on the application of various artificial neural networks
to simultaneous prediction of rock fragmentation and backbreak.
J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 5, 318 (2013)
33. Y. Jong, C. Lee, Application of neural networks to prediction of
powder factor and peak particle velocity in tunnel blasting, in
Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Explosives and
Blasting Technique, vol 2, Las Vegas, Nevada, 10–13 Feb 2002,
p. 67
34. Y.H. Jong, C.I. Lee, Influence of geological conditions on the
powder factor for tunnel blasting. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
41(41), 533 (2004)
35. S.S. Leu, S.F. Lin, C.K. Chen, S.W. Wang, Analysis of powder
factors for tunnel blasting using neural networks. Fragblast 2(4),
433 (1998)
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D
36. M. Monjezi, A. Yazdian, S.M. Hesami, Use of back propagation
neural network to estimate burden in tunnel blasting. J. Min. Met.
Fuels 12(4), 424 (2006)
37. M. Monjezi, T.N. Singh, M. Khandelwal, S. Sinha, V. Singh, I.
Hosseini, Prediction and analysis of blast parameters using arti-
ficial neural network. Noise Vib. Worldw 5(5), 8 (2006)
38. A.S. Tawadrou, P.D. Katsabani, Prediction of surface blast pat-
terns in limestone quarries using artificial neural networks.
Fragblast 9(4), 233 (2005)
39. A. Bahrami, M. Monjezi, K. Goshtasbi, A. Ghazvinian, Predic-
tion of rock fragmentation due to blasting using artificial neural
network. Eng. Comput. 27(2), 177 (2011)
40. P.H.S.W. Kulatilake, W. Qiong, T. Hudaverdi, C. Kuzu, Mean
particle size prediction in rock blast fragmentation using neural
networks. Engineering Geology 114(3–4), 298 (2010)
41. M.J. Moghadam, M.A.E. Farsangi, H. Mansouri, H. Nezamabadi,
Muck-pile fragmentation prediction using artificial neural net-
works. J. Min. Met. Fuels India 54(12), 421 (2006)
42. M. Monjezi, H. Amiri, A. Farrokhi, K. Goshtasbi, Prediction of
rock fragmentation due to blasting in Sarcheshmeh copper mine
using artificial neural networks. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 28(4), 423
(2010)
43. K. Oraee, B. Asi, Prediction of rock fragmentation in open pit
mines using neural network analysis, in Proceedings of 15th
International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment
Selection (MPES 2006), 20–22 Sept 2006, Torino, Italy, p. 19
44. X. Shi, D. Huang, J. Zhou, S. Zhang, Combined ANN prediction
model for rock fragmentation distribution due to blasting. J. Inf.
Comput. Sci. 10(11), 3511 (2013)
45. H.B. Zhu, L. Wu, Application of gray correlation analysis and
artificial neural network in rock mass blasting. J. Coal Sci. Eng.
11(1), 44 (2005)
46. J. Hall, I. Brunton, Critical comparison of Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Center (JKMRC) blast fragmentation models. Fragblast
6(2), 207 (2002)
47. R. F. Chiappetta, Choosing the right delay timing for the blasting
application, optimization and maintaining field control, in Pro-
ceedings of 8th High-Tech Seminar on State-of-the Art, Blasting
Technology, Instrumentation and Explosives Applications,
Nashville, Allentown PA, USA, 20–24 July 1998, p. 215.
123